University of Idaho Bans All Alternatives to Evolution

Discovery Institute ^ | 10/06/05 | John MIller

[Sopater]

University of Idaho President Tim White has entered the debate pitting Charles Darwin's theories of life against religious-based alternatives by forbidding anything other than evolution from being taught in the Moscow school's life, earth and physical science classes.

"This (evolution) is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our biophysical sciences," he wrote. "Teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses."

[Rudder]

You don't know what you're talking about. This is not censorship, it's an effort to keep idiots, who know nothing about science, from inserting their foolishness into a reputable science curricula. ID is for superstitious fools who believe in ghosts and space aliens.

[RunningWolf]

it's an effort to keep idiots, who know nothing about science, from inserting their foolishness into a reputable science curricula. ID is for superstitious fools who believe in ghosts and space aliens.

Then by that logic, evolution is for vampire mengele idiots who harvest cell tissue from aborted baby's, and inject it into other people. They then call that advanced science and themselves scientists.

Wolf

[Sopater]

You didn't look at the link, did you?

Well, I have looked at the link many times, and unfortunately I don't have the time to go into the details of the problems with each of these speculative transitional forms. Pick a couple of your favorites if you like and I'll tell you why the assumptions are not scientific and why they are based on speculation and presupposition.

[Right Wing Professor]

Well, I have looked at the link many times, and unfortunately I don't have the time to go into the details of the problems with each of these speculative transitional forms. Pick a couple of your favorites if you like and I'll tell you why the assumptions are not scientific and why they are based on speculation and presupposition.

Archaeopteryx and Rodhocetus will do.

[Sopater]

You're aware that science, by definition, examines only naturalistic causes, correct?

I'm aware that a great deal of scientists are trying to redefine science in this way, but Merriam-Webster doesn't define science this way.

[Wings-n-Wind]

What they are not free to do in general is to teach something as fact that has no supporting evidence.

Are you suggesting that the central premises of the Darwinian theory is secured by reliable supporting evidence?

[Rudder]

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

If there's a move to redefine science, it certainly has been flying under the radar. The one from the dictionary you cite been the definition for the 40 years I've been a scientist.

[KMJames]

Species to species evolution is your phrase, not mine.

Agreed, it is a phrase that I used to fast-forward the discussion past the "micro-evolution" examples. However, it seems to me that the examples you referenced as "real-time changes" didn't have a fast-forward function.

It is possible that I don't understand the significance of these examples, because, frankly, I'm underwhelmed. Esentially, we have fruit flies speciating to somewhat different fruit flies, other flies and cichlids speciating into other flies and cichlids.

Reading about these experiments is interesting on several levels, however, so I am, personally, coming away with something. For instance, it seems entirely likely to me that fundamentally different rules govern the diversity of plants and animals. After all, plants and animals are fundamentally different.

My favorite sentence: Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

[atlaw]

Are you suggesting that the central premises of the Darwinian theory is secured by reliable supporting evidence?

Yes. Are you suggesting that you have not bothered to acquaint yourself with even a small portion of this evidence?

[shuckmaster]

The funny thing about that is that you probably believe it's true!

[Dimensio]

He said "creationism", not ID. Remember, ID is different from creationism. We know this because ID proponents say so.

[Dimensio]

So, what created the first form of "life". What force animated that first form of life? You can't argue chemical interaction (even with the incidence of energy forms such as lightning - there is far too much documented evidence that life cannot be created that way). So what happened?

You are attempting to argue that if no other answer is currently known with available knowledge, then intelligent intervention is the logical conclusion. This is not a logical argument. You are arguing from incredulity: "I don't know what did it, so it MUST have been created!" Secondly, you are not only ignoring the extensive research in the field of abiogenesis, but you are also boiling down one rather old hypothesis into an overgeneralized strawman and attacking it from a position of ignorance.

[Sopater]

The one from the dictionary you cite been the definition for the 40 years I've been a scientist.

Webster seems to be defining NATURAL SCIENCE as a subset of SCIENCE, notice that the definition of NATURAL SCIENCE takes you to a new definition. Strangely enough, that definition says absolutely nothing about requiring the data to be interpreted within any one philisophical framework. Therefore, why would any scientist want to restrict the framework in which objectively measureable evidence can be interpreted?

[Dimensio]

Consider that throughout history the lone scientist who has come up with a theory, only to be proved 50 some years later he/she was right.

THEORIES ARE NEVER PROVEN, EVER!!!

Now, do you have an example of a "lone scientists" who was apparently shunned by the scientific community only to have his or her works embraced by the scientific community several decades later? Names please.

How many decades did science embrace the Piltdown man and only to find out it was a hoax.

Not many at all. Biologists outside of England were skeptical of the claim in general from the very beginning, and once the "find" was opened up to peer review (for the longest time no one could really get access to it) it was quickly discarded. The thing didn't make sense when it was first introduced, since it didn't fit in with any genuine finds that were used for determining human ancestry.

[Dimensio]

Therefore, why would any scientist want to restrict the framework in which objectively measureable evidence can be interpreted?

How would supernatural "evidence" be objectively observed and measured? How would a scientist even discern between natural and supernatural observations?

[gondramB]

" Are you suggesting that the central premises of the Darwinian theory is secured by reliable supporting evidence?"


First, I am stating that there is not evidence for intelligent design sufficient for it to be taught. that alone should be enough to end this debate.

Second, if there are problems with the science, you fix the science and/or admit some things are still being researched, you don't throw up your hands and say "we don't understand so forget science and teach religion."

Third, yes, the central point of evolution - that more complex life has evolved from simpler life is so well supported by evidence that it is the only reasonable scientific theory at this point.

[MortMan]

Incorrect. I was replying to the proposition that ID proponents should be unable to discuss their theories (not specifically the scientific definition of this word) because they couldn't say "what created the creator". I was illustrating the inanity of that position by counter-proposing that evolutionists should be disallowed from discussing their theories (again, not specifically the scientific definition) because they cannot answer what created the first spark of life.

I do not hold enough personal knowledge to sway many to one side or the other, but I do know enough to identify a ludicrous argument, illustrating same by putting forward an oppositional ludicrous argument.

As far as arguing from incredulity, I was refuting an incredulous argument by proposing an opposite (but equally incredulous) argument. It is neither ignorant nor incorrect to use the weak form of an opponent's argument (in a debate) to illustrate the absurdity of that argument.

Have a great day.

[higgmeister]

To exclusively promote one philosophical world view over all others

Not Philosophical, Scientific.

Read it again! It's OK to promote other views in Philosophical
classes.

[Sopater]

You miss the point. All "evidence" is observed and measured. Nothing that is not observed or measured is truly "evidence". This includes the "belief" that there either can or cannot be a supernatural explanation for what is observed.

[Sopater]

What's scientific about the "belief" that there is nothing but a naturalistic cause to explain everything that we observe?